Andrew: He [Shadi Abou-Zahra] had some suggestions
the section title [Referring to section: "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"] from 1.0 to WCAG 2 [the title indicates that there is a mapping table from MWBP *to* WCAG but not the other way around] to Why no [Suggested title is: "Why No Mapping Table?" or "Why No Mapping Table Between WCAG and MWBP"]...The two
implies a direction of the mapping. Switching the fields as a
consideration. He leaves that to Alan to decide on.

<shadi> [yes, all my comments
are editors discretion, but I think they are minor editorial
issues that should be addressed before publication if
possible]

Alan: the first one on shortened
titles I have done. The idea of the mapping table is a good
idea. There was message from Francois, most of what he said
were discussed in the Best Practices working group yesterday [MWBP Meeting on the 26th of June - http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-bpwg-minutes.html].
And are included in this mornings message [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2008AprJun/0115.html]. He suggested the
audience section has to be one even if short. We hadn't voted
on, but came to an consensus that we need audience section [In the Overview document] but
not in this draft.

Andrew: not yet...

Alan: the word relationship is
missing from the title [In the Overview document - WCAG and MWBP]. It should go back in. I've done
that.

Andrew: what would make the title
now Alan?

Alan: Should be relationship [Between Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and] the
mobile best practices. Then I think on the main overview page,
something this is the overview page, a subheading

Andrew a sub heading or tagline.

Alan: yes,

William: or right at the head of
the contents.

Alan: above the fold.

William: fact is the top overview
it doesn't have a line under it ["Overview" menu item at the top], so people know this is the
over page.

Andrew: your eyes jump to the
large H1 rather than the top [Top navigation menu].

Alan: maybe we can talk about
that when there are more people on the call.

Andrew: depending what you put in
depending before the publication. Liam?

Laim: the correspondence section,
the explanation on why SC or BP means [In the section "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"]. Suggestions to expand
that. Each section should be, because it is the overview.
People are familiar with [one, i.e., WCAG or MWBP] but not the other [WCAG or MWBP].

<Zakim> LiamMcGee, you wanted
to ask about explanation of asymmetry of WCAG to MWBP [Explained in "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"]

<LiamMcGee> Note it was the
abbreviations SC and BP I was referring to [In the section "Why No WCAG to MWBP Mapping Table?"].

William: how often do we do this?
You are introducing MWBP when you come to it, I saw earlier. If
you do that, it seems like everywhere, missing the whole point
of an acronym. You can say WCAG but not MWBP.

Andrew: in hypertext you can jump
about. When you jump straight into the scope [section] you miss the
abstraction [e.g., MWBP and WCAG].

William: that [Introducing abbreviations one and then using the abbreviation] happens in books,
and you are forced to do this.

Alan: It has been abused.
Controversially, at the top I put in a link to the navigation [Added a link called "contents" to enable people skip table of contents and move to the main content],
[including mobile phones]. [They have this in] WCAG 1.0 but not consistent [across all sub-pages, such as "WCAG 1.0 to MWBP"] and
doesn't appear and be taken out [Suggested to be taken out].

Yeliz: [Overview page] has a table of content,
but have to...[the other pages don't have a table of contents]

Andrew: a key board user [need to be considered as they will have to tab a lot of links].

Yeliz: good idea to have in the
overview [page], have at the top to skip,

Andrew: a person who has to use a
keyboard, it takes quite a bit of tabs to skip over [table of contents to reach the main content].

Yeliz: I agree.

Alan: I agree, wrong written
around other sections. [The page "WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together" has] a the table of contents but the
sections it refers to don't exist anymore [WCAG 2.0 and MWBP Together document].

Andrew: that is reasonable still
jump to content.

LIam: are navigation tabs. Have a
skip link [A skip link is needed to jump to the main content].

Alan: call it content, not
contents.

William: have another road that
says neither under that [refers to Table in the section "How to use this document"].
... going to be people who have done neither. Neither both is
good. Up to you.

Alan: the lastly, in the pages
for example, mobile to WCAG 2.00 you have the summary of what
is required, divided into nothing and something lists [nothing, something and everything], and
links there [directly point] to WCAG checkpoints. In the WCAG 1.0 to Best
Practices [From WCAG 1.0 to MWBP document] in the summary of what is required, in nothing list,
and in that section to not best practices but to this
document [best practices links in the "nothing" section are intra-links]. But go to the everything section, points to the best
practices section [best practices links in the "everything" section refer to MWBP document], something needed to point in this page [therefore the links are inconsistent].

William: no distinction?

Alan: link point to Best
Practices.

Andrew: jumped down to nothing to
something adds to the confusion [since some links point to other pages, but links with similar labels can be intra-links].

Alan: remove.

William: parathetical ...

Andrew: Williams suggestion in
parenthesis [Explain that the links are pointing to other documents or to this document], say best practices directly to the pronounced
document. To go to from each feature of the links. A good
compromise for now.

ALan: identifies the target of
that link [MWBP requires that link labels clearly identify the link targets]. Actually links to the best practice.

William: I thought I had already
best practices,and the link to suitable. Needs a lot of work
to understand, what constitutes suitability.

Andrew: recognizing there is an
issue there, just say a note in the change log, the link
consistency needs to be addressed before this is published.
Shows you are aware of that and don't get criticized for it.
Any other changes?

William: let's take nothing goes
to this in the document. People worried about going to another
document.

Alan: some kind of text?

Willaim: calling attention to
inside and outside. Might not notice with fast computers [Pages are loaded so fast that people might not notice that they are retrieving another page]. I do
because I am connected through a satellite.

Andrew: links are not acting
consistently. Will before document is published. Any other
issues from the Mobile Web group.

Alan: no but pay attention to the
other ones and sorted in alphabetical order and checked to be
correct [Sub-pages such as "From WCAG 2.0 to MWBP"].

Andrew: See if there is a
volunteer.

Alan: I could volunteer myself,
but nice if someone else did it. Charles maybe?

Andrew: I know the problem of
being too close to the document.

William: how many people are in
both worlds.

Alan: Yeliz, Charles and
myself.

Andrew: should all take a look
through one of the documents between and see if any
inconsistencies like the one William raised about behaviour,
more particularly in terms of the descriptions Alan used. Not
that we will pick them up everybody read through the documents
and Alan know let him know, should be considered for correction
before publication. Alan any other to consider before it is
done?

Alan: not really.

Liam: subscriber hits? Why [Do you use "[]" in the links in the navigation menu at the top]. we
wouldn't regard. stylistic?

Alan: vote on by the quesitonaire
is the best way. Happen on anything major happens.

Andrew: I don't think anything
major will happen today. Shawn put up is open to the middle of
next week. Any comment on. Primarily for editors discretion.
Over to you now. Take on board what you think is appropriate.
I'll check with Shawn.

William: next time in the Mobile
Web [MWBP meeting] thing, do a little skim to working group addressed a whole
lot of stuff attempts to keep the mobile web to keep in their
place because they are device dependent.

Alan: Best Practices conform to a
minimal device. Their intention is to find out what device and
exploit the device.

William: be obsolete in five
years.

Alan: new best practices,
something else to be taken into account.

William: this is all fine and
wonderful.

Andrew: you did William. Just
before we finish. Sharron? Henny? add point out.

Andrew: Shawn put together a
thing [an introduction page], similar to the WAI literature review. The WAI task force
is fine for now. For review the next month or two. To see if EO
has any criticism, suggestion for this short page. Everyone
there?

William: the page contents
suggests not bad to do as before.

Andrew: a requirement for
technical documents is what Alan used [WCAG and MWBP document]. Being debated for
changes, but we have to follow this formal format. They are
looking at all sorts of alternatives.

William: when I saw this I
thought this was different.

Andrew: give a flavour of the
technically written and a short introduction about what a WAI
review [Web Accessibility for Older Users review - see http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature/] is, Read a moment to make a comment.

William: makes it seem the
audience the EO group, inform education and outreach. Select
different nouns, so that it does not imply that.

Liam: aware of the EO group.

Andrew: could lead to some
confusion Liam?

Liam: I don't see it as an
issue.

Andrew: to confuse WAI or by
WAI.

Liam: could include anybody.

Andrew: No action for this
item.
... second sentence is there to identify is not a popular item,
the research or academic audience. People happy with that? What
is in the literature review.

Yeliz: not sure about the last
part - "Covers all the needs of the literature". Last
paragraph ["What is in the Literature Review" section].

Andrew: just to pull out one of
the early observations we had. Addressed many of the
requirements, much of the literature didn't address the WAI
guidelines. Clarify that better.

Yeliz: not sure about "the
guidelines covering older users" [part of the final sentence].

Liam: a bit hard, put in
brackets.

Andrew: to break out.

William: can be seen as a
whine.

Andrew: complaint?

William: not paying attention to
us. Discussions ["An initial finding of the Literature Review is that while existing WAI guidelines address many requirements of older Web users, there is little reference to the WAI guidelines in literature about and guidelines covering the needs of older Web users" sentence] on how you say it.

Andrew: does anybody think it
rephrased to less whine sense?

Shadi: take that as editors
discretion. Little considerations of WAI guidelines, some for
all the users, or the literature for all the users does not
consider using all the guidelines, might be a possibility.

William: dominated by the
re-invention of the wheel without looking on the previous work
was. Maybe specify we are talking about. The finding is not so
much repeats, but is redundant.

Andrew: reasonable comment
William. Easier to read more like a comment rather than a
complaint.

Andrew: has a technical comment
that you may not want to read, but required for the publishing
requirements. May be some incorrect wording, Shadi I will defer
to you about correcting with that...W3C participate.

William: if you have a tree
structure, WAI age conducted with rather than under, not sure
is there.

Shadi: in this case this is true.
Most of this is education materials. Under the EO working
grouping, recruiting from the ASian working group. Outside WAI
EO.

William: this is a web not a
tree. sprung to mind implication is under it, rather what I
prefer is with this.

Shadi: these materials in is part
of WAI a venn diagram.

Andrew: any more comments.

Yeliz: very clear [document].

Andrew: capture any other
essential findings. For sections, if people are happy now, good
intro before jumping.

Liam: just one more thing...about
WAI age is not an English acronym.

Shadi: where you go into acronyms
about abbreviations.

Liam: I was thinking AG.

Andrew: you mean AGE, or A
something G something E something.

William: the latter.

Andrew: I think are about done
for today.

Shadi: Liam I want to make sure
about what confused you?

Liam: I withdraw the comment.

Shadi: I think of that as short
name.

Andrew: HTML markup language,
don't handle all the options we have in written language but
they work.

Shadi: I'm not sure.

Andrew: a topic for beer one day.
Any last comments? Thank you all. Please take the questionaire.
Indicate in the record, anything to take account of in
particular afterwards. Please indicate your approval for the
record.
... anybody available to tidy up the minutes today/

Yeliz: I can do it.

Andrew: Shawn will check on that
on Monday. Thank you all see you next week.